


//.r^ 



HOLLINGER 
pH8.5 

MILL RUN F3-1543 




s r E E C H 




MR. R. TOOMBS. OF GEORGIA, 



IN THE HOUSK OF REPRESENTATIVES, FEBRUARY 27, 1850, IN COMMITTEE OF THE 
WHOLE ON THE STATE OF THE UNION, ON THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE COMMU- 
NICATING THE CONSTITUTION OF CALIFORNIA. 

v5 ■ 




Mr. TOOMBS said: 

Mr. Chaerjian: There is a g-eneral discontent 
smong the people of fifteen States of the Union 
against this Government. Popular discontents are 
rarely ill-founded. It is almost inipossihle in a 
free, popular government, for any considerable 
portion of the people to become alienated from the 
governm-'iit of their own free choice without a sub- 
stantial reason. I propose, as a Representative of 
a portion of the people who participate largely in 
this discontent, to inquire into its cause, and if it 
be well-founded, to ask you to remove it. It is 
based upon a well-founded apprehension of a fixed 
purpose on the part of the non-slaveholding States 
of the Union to destroy llicir political risrhts ; to 

Cut their institutions under the ban of the 'empire, 
y excluding them from an equal participation in 
the common benefits of the Republic, and thereby 
to bring the powers of their own Government in 
direct hostility to fifteen hundred millions of their 
property. This brief statement suggests the pro- 
priety of the investigation upon which I now pro- 
pose to enter: What is the true relation of this 
Government to property in slaves? We arc now, 
sir, in a transition state; heretofore the distribu- 
tion of political power, under our system, has made 
sectional ag-gression impossible. I think it would 
have been wise to have secured permanency to such 
distribution by the fundamental law. It was not 
done. 

The course of events, the increase of population 
in the northern portion of the republic, and the ad- 
dition of New States, are about to give, if they have 
not already given, the non-slaveholding States a 
majority in both branches of Congress, and they 
have a large and increasing majority of the popula- 
tion of tlie Union. These causes have brouglit us 
to the point where we are to test the sufficiency of 
written constitutions to protect the rights of a mi- 
nority against a majority of the people. Upon the 
determination of this question will depend, and 
ought to depend, the permanency of the Govern- 
ment. The union of these States had its birth in 
the weakness of its separate members: witliout that 
single controlling element, its early history amply 
demonstrates that its creation, in its present form, 
would have been an impossibility. It contained 
'^uncongenial elements, and perhaps discordant in- 
?rests. It left local, yet great and important 
terests, of what was even then seen would be nu- 
Srically the weaker section of the confederacy, 

'\IDE0N & Co., Printers. 



without any security against the stronger, except 
from parchment guarantees. Our fathers did not 
imitate the wisdom of the great Grecian ambasaa- 
(lor, who declared, when entering into a treaty 
with the adversaries of his country: I will accept 
no other security but this — that you shall not have 
thcpoiuer to injure my country, if you wish to do 
it. Our security, under the Constitution, is Ixised 
solely upon good faith. There is nothing in its 
structure which makes aggression permanently 
impossible. It requires neither skill, nor genius, 
nor courage, to perpetrate it; it requires only bad 
faith. I have studied the histories of nations and 
the characteristics of mankind to but little purpose 
if that quality shall be found w-antiug in the future 
administration of our affairs. Our present Consti- 
tution was not baptized in the blood of the revolu- 
tion. 

The old confederation, which waa found strong 
enough, under a sense of common danger, to carry 
us triumphantly through the war of the revolution, 
upon the return of peace, was supposed to be insuf- 
ficient for the wants of the country. Delegates met 
in convention at Philadelphia to amend it; the 
present Constitution was the result of their labors. 
The journals and debates of that convention attest 
the fact, that the delegates from the slaveholding 
States saw the danger of submitting tlieir rights to 
property in slaves to the hostile legislation of the 
proposed new government. They then foresaw 
that they would be in a minority ; a strong hostili- 
ty to that interest was openly manifested in the 
convention ; they were wise enough not to expect 
an abatement of that sentiment, and therefore they 
demanded special guarantees for its protection. 
The inflexible pertinacity with which some of these 
guarantees were insisted upon, on more than one 
occasion during the deliberations of that assembly, 
threatened the loss of the whole plan of Union. 
They were conceded, because the Union could not 
have been formed without their concession. These 
special guarantees were — 

1st. An exception of the African slave trade from 
the general power of Congress over commerce for 
twenty years. 

2d. Representation for slaves in this branch of 
Congress. 

3d. The right to demand the delivery up of fugi- 
tives frriVn labor escaping to the non-slaveholding 
confederates. 



\ 



\ 



4th. The obligation of the General Government 
to suppress insurrections. 

These special securities, tog'ether with the reser- 
vation " to the States respectively, or to the peo- 
ple," of the " powers not dcleg'ated to the United 
States by the Constitution, nor proliibitcd by it to 
the States," were supposed by those who granted 
them and those who accepted them to be amply 
sufi&cient to protect property in slaves from any 
hostile action of this Government. In this sense 
was the Constitution received and accepted by the 
people of the United States. The only defect in 
these guarantees results from the fact that the ex- 
ecution and faithful observance of them depend 
upon the good faith of the Government; in them- 
selves honestly adhered to, they are full, ample, 
and sufficient. 

The liistory of some of them is curious and 
instructing. At the time of the formation of the 
Constitution, Virginia and Marj'land had prohib- 
ited the African slave ti-ade. North Carolina had 
laws tramniclingand restraining it. South Carolina 
and Georgia insisted upon further importations. 
These two States bargained with New England, 
and a part of the consideration was, that New 
Eiio-lanil was to vote for the continuance of the 
African slave trade for twenty years, and Georgia 
and South Carolina were to vote to place the gen- 
eral commerce of the country under the control of 
a majority of Congress, instead of two-thirds, 
which had been passed by the Convention. The 
understanding was fairly carried out on both sides, 
and thus the African slave trade was made lawful 
commerce under the flag of the tJnion by the votes 
of New England against the votes of slaveholding 
Virginia and Maryland. The North has en- 
joyed in security her part of the bargain, and she 
was none the loser by our part of the contract, as 
she did the carrying, and received the profits of 
the speculation in slaves. Yet, in the face of these 
facts, and in defiance of these provisions of the 
Constitution, we are told on this floor, by New 
England Representatives, that slave property is 
out of the protection of the Government. Thou- 
sands of these slaves thus introduced as lawful 
commerce are still held by the people of the South; 
other thousands, which were sold for taxes and 
Other debts due this Government, are thus held; 
the money is, or may be in your treasury, liable 
to be paid out for your per-diem pay. Your Gov- 
ernment has direct or iiriperfect liens upon other 
thousands in the shape of official or other bonds. 
We have the right to call on you to give your 
blood to maintain these thousands and all the rest 
of the slaves of the South in bondage. It is "so 
nominated in the bond." Yet with these obliga- 
tions resting upon you, wc arc told by you that 
slave property is out of the protection of the Gov- 
ernment. Gentlemen, deceive not yourselves, you 
cannot deceive others. This is a pro-slavery gov- 
ernment. Slavery is stamped upon its heart— the 
Constitution. You must tear that out of the body 
politic before you can comvrience the work of its 
eradication. 

1 liave heard in this hall, within a few days past, 
fierce and bitter denunciations from northern lips, 
of Abolitionists — those of the Garrison school, who 
sometimes chance to meet in Faneuil Hall. In my 
judgment, their lino of policy is the fairest, most 
just, most honest and defensible of all the enemies 
of our institutions. And such will be the judg- 
ment of impartial history. "They shun no ques- 
tion, they wear no mask." They admit some, at 
least, of the constitutional obligations to protect 
slavery. They hold these obligations inconsistent 



with good cronscience, and they therefore denounce 
the Constitution as "a covenant with Death and a 
league with Hell," and struggle earnestly for its 
overthrow. If their conduct is devoid of every 
other virtue, and every other claim to our respect, 
it is at least consistent. They do not seek, as many 
members do here, to get the benefits, and shun the 
burdens of the bargain. 

Notwithstanding the constitutional safeguards 
which I have enumerated, the enemies of slavery 
here have attempted, and are now attempting, to 
get, by implication, that power to war upon it 
which was so studiously withheld. No man pre 
tends that there is any express power (except that 
to inhibit the African slave trade after 180S) gran- 
ed in the Constitution to limit, restrain, discourag. 
or otherwise impair property in slaves. But the' 
seek to effect these objects by implication, unde- 
the claim of power to govern the Territories belong 
ing to the United States. This power to goveri 
the Territories is itself but a doubtful implication 
It is not founded upon express grant. That claust 
of the Constitution which authorizes Congress "to 
' dispose of and make all needful rules and regu- 
' lations respecting the territory or other property 
' belonging to the United States" has been some- 
times relied upon to warrant legislation over the 
Territories. But its terms confine it so clearly to 
territory as land, as property, that the pretension 
is now generally abandoned as untenable, the ad- 
vocates of the power most usually claim it as result- 
ing from the power to acquire territory by treaty. 

It being unimportant to my argument from 
whence the power to legislate over the Territorie; 
is derived, I shall not now discuss it. No matter 
where 3''ou place it, the power to legislate against 
slavery is not a legitimate incident to it, and can- 
not by any just rule of constitutional construction 
be derived from it. The object, the end, is no- 
where sanctioned by the Constitution, therefore the 
means cannot be implied. The argument of the 
North, stated briefly, is this: That the object of the 
power to legislate over the Territories is to give 
them good government, and that the exclusion of 
slavery is a necessary and proper means to secure 
that object. The conclusion is not warranted by 
the premises, even considering it as a general pro- 
position, without reference to our peculiar form of 
government; taken in that connexion it is not only 
illogical, but atrocious. It is assuming that there 
was au implied power given to the head of our po- 
litical system to war against its members — a power 
to stamp with reprobation the institutions of fifteen 
States of the Republic, to declare their institutions 
inconsistent with good g-overnment, and to forbid 
their adoption, even if desired by the people, by 
the inhabitants of the common domain of all the 
States. There lies the real question between us. 
This pretension is not only not warranted by the 
Constitution, but brings you in direct collision with 
the fundamental principles of this Government and 
of all good government. This Government was 
established for the protection of the rights of per- 
sons and the rights of property of the political com- -4 
munitics which adopted it. These are the primary 
objects of all good government. The protection of 
property is the corner-stone of industry, of national 
progress, of civilization. No government can stand 
in America, or ought to stand any where, which, 
brings its powers in hostility to the property of th 
people. These principles are the foundation of ' 
positions which I assumed at the opening of 
Congress. They elicited much animadvcr 
from the press of the North, and some from _ 
at the South who are among us, but not of V 



iilrsirc here, affain, to roaflirin them. 1 nhall staiul 
by thcia; if tneir iiiainteiiatuc by the Soutli costa 
the Union, it is your fault, not ourfl. Our liven, 
our property, our constitutional privilepea are all 
really involveil in the irisue. Your position ofTers 
us the fate of Hayti, or, at best, of Jainaiea, or re- 
sistance to lawless rule. 1 trust there is nothing in 
our past hi.story which outrlit to induce you to 
doubt which alternative we shall aci-ept. 1 houifh 
the Union may perish, thoufrh slavery may |)eris(i, 
1 warn my coinitrymeu never to surrender their 
rig-ht to an. equal participation iu the common pro- 
perty of the republic, nor their right to full and 
ample protection of their property from their own 
PTOvcrnmcni. The ilay they do this dee<l "their 
fall will be like that of Lucifer, never to rise 
again." 

This general duty of Government to protect the 
property of the people is so <ibviously just that it is 
usually admitted, with the qualificalion of except- 
ing slave property. This very exception is but as- 
serting in a more odious form hostility to our rights. 
TIic principli; upon which the exception is pre- 
tended to be l)ased is, that slavery is a peculiar in- 
stitution and is against the common law of man- 
kind. If .slavery is a peculiar institution, 1 have to 
reply, then om- Governmc'iit is a peculiar govern- 
ment, and our Constitution is a peculiar constitu- 
tion, for I have alri'ady shown that both the Gov- 
ernment and the Constitution are impregnated 
with the peculiarity. "The common law ol man- 
kind" is at best but an uncertain term. It wants 
many of the essential ingredients of good law. It 
is difficult of ascertainment, and more diflii'ult to 
enforce. I take its best exponent to be the prac- 
tice of mankind. Tester I by this rule the position 
of our opponents is untenable. There is no period 
in the history of the human race in which slavery 
has not existed in a great portion of the earth. It 
was the universal practice of mankind from the 
days of Abraham until the formation of our Con- 
stitution. It was expressly authorized and sanc- 
tioned by the successor of St. Peter in the sixteenth 
century, and was at that time the general law of 
Christendom. At the formation of our Constitution 
property in slaves was recognised and protected in 
some form by every civilized government in the 
world. If our constitutional rights to tlie protection 
of our slave property is to be subjected to this new 
test, this new mvention of our opponent,-*, "the 
common law of mankind," we claim to stand upon 
the law as it stood when the compact was made. 
It is the legal and just rule of construing private 
contracts: it is equally just when applieil to the ex- 
position of public compacts. It is the only mode of 
arriving at the true sense and meaning of the par- 
ties to tlie compact in relation to the test applied. 
At that day slavery w-as lawful in every country 
in the world where it was not prohibited by law. 
The dictum of Lord Mansfield to the contrary in 
Somersctt's case, in 1772, was outside of the case 
before him, against the express decision of Lord 
Hardwicke and other eminent English jurists on 
the precise point, and was disavowed fifty years 
afterwards in a judicial decision by Ix)rd Stowell, 
one of the most able, learned, and accomiilished of 
England's judges. That such was the common 
law of these colonies Lord Mansfield himself, in the 
case referred to, expressly affirmed; and that such 
wa.s the understanding of the law by the States 
who formed our Constitution is conclusively proved 
by the fact, that emancipation, where it has taken 
place, has l>een efTected in every instance but one 
by express prohibition; and it is further shown by 
the uniform protection which this Government, 



from its foundation, has given to property in slaves 
without iiUjuiry into itn origin. This Government 
has no power to <leelare what shall or what shall 
not be pro|)erty,or to regulate the maimer or place* 
of itrt enjoyment, exce[)tln thecu.sea of patent righta 
and copyrights. This power helongu Ui the State 
governments to the extent that it existfl anywhere. 
Whatever any of the State.-* rerofrni»e a* pronerly, 
it is the duty of this Government to protect. vVhen 
it pliu-es itself in hostility to property thus se- 
cured, it becomes an enemy to the people, and 
ought to be corrected or subverted. This ia a 
question which afToctfl the rights of all the Statea. 

This is the only rule which can preserve the har- 
mony of the Union, and enable the General Gov- 
ernment tojierform iinpsirtially its duties to States 
having diflrrent interests ami institutions. We 
have no right to complain, and we do noteomplaia 
of any policy which our confederates may imprMe 
upon their own citizene, in relation to slavery with- 
in their own limits; nor do we complain of the 
opinions of individuals in reference to it. Maasa- 
cliusetts can send Abolitionists here if she choosefl, 
and she makes a free use of the right. What we 
have the right to demand, and what wo dodemand, 
is, that they shall not impress their anti-slavery 
opinions upon the legislation of this Government. 
We neither desire to force our policy upon her, nor 
will we submit to have hers forced upon us. We 
offer her the power and the resources of the repub- 
lic to protect her property. We require the same 
for ourselves. What object of material wealth, 
animate or inanimate, recognised by the laws of 
the northern States, have we ever failed to protect.' 
None. When have we ever attempted, by legisla- 
tion or otherwise, to war upon her domestic policy? 
Never. We have not only protected her wealth, 
when created or acquired, but we have done 
more — we have aided her, by our legislation, to 
create it. By our navigation laws we have given 
her the monopoly of our coasting trade. By dis- 
criminating tariffs we have invigorated and stimu- 
lated the arm of her industry. We have followed 
with our laws her ships freighted with her pro- 
perty, and her hardy seamen in pursuit of wealth, 
over the trackless ocean, to the uttermost parts of 
the world. They have traversed every ocean; 
they have stood upon every isle of the sea and upon 
every continent of the earth, securely pursuing 
the acquisition of wealth, under that emblem of 
our nationality — the stars and stripes. 

We have withheld no partof the price— neither of 
blood nor treasure — of winning for that Hag a name 
and a renown wliicli makes it so omnipotent to 
shield the persons and property of Aincricau citi- 
zens. The sight of the nag of England once caused 
every Anglo-Saxon bean on this continent to leap 
with joy and gladness. Then the power which it 
represented was used to shield and protect them. 
Foolish tyrants made it the emblem of degrailation. 
Loyalty was converted into hate — the re.st is his- 
tory. Profit by its teachings. I demand to-day 
that protection for iny constituents which we have 
never withheld from you. It is the price of our al- 
legiance. Let us understand each other. We hold 
it to be the duty of this Government to protect the 
persons and property of the citizens of the United 
Stales wherever its tlag floats ancl it has paramount 
jurisdiction. And as a just corollary from this 
principle, we afiirm that, as tiie Territories of the 
United States are the common pnjperty (>f the peo- 
ple of the several States, we have tnc right to enter 
them with our flocks and our herds, with our men 
servants and our maid servants, and what-ever else 
the laws of any of the States of this Union declare 



\ 



to be property, and to receive full and ample pro- 
tection from our common Government until its 
authority is riefhtfully superseded by a State Gov- 
erimient. This is equity, this is what wc call 
equality; and it is what you would call equity 
and equality but for your crusade against slavery. 
Wc do not demantl, as is constantly alleged on 
this floor and elsewhere, that you shall establish 
slavery in the Territories. I have endeavored to 
show that you have no power to do so. Slavery is 
a " fixed fact" in your system. Wc ask protec- 
tion against all hostile impediments to the intro- 
duction and peaceable enjoyment of all of our pro- 
perty in the Territories. Whether these impedi- 
ments arise from foreign laws or from any pretend- 
ed domestic authority, we hold it to be your duty 
to remove them. Foreign laws can only exist in 
acquired territory by your will, express or imphed. 
It is a fraud on our riglits to permit them to re- 
main to our prejudice. This new doctrine, assert- 
ing the right of the squatters on the public domain 
to assume sovcreiernty over it, in its Territorial state, 
was concocted only for a Presidential campaign. 
It failed of its purpose, and is now brought into 

feneral coniempt. It is believed to be without a 
efender except in its putative father. Congress 
alone has the right to legislate for the Territories 
until they shall te prepared for admission into the 
Union. At that period they have the right to form 
such government as they may prefer, with the sole 
restriction that it shall be republican. When they 
shall be admitted, and what shall be their bouiida- 
riee, and who shall participate in the formation of 
their government, are proper subjects for legisla- 
tive discretion. Congress has no power over the 
character of their domestic institutions. Acting 
upon these principles, at the last session of Congress 
I gave my support to the bill for the admission of 
California into the Union, introduced by a gentle- 
man from Virginia, (Mr. Preston,) who now, 
with so much honor to himself and advantage to 
the country, presides over one of the great depart- 
ments of this Government. That bill authorized 
the people of California to form their own institu- 
tions according to their own wishes. Northern 
gentlemen thrust in their anti-slavery proviso, and 
the bill was defeated. Now I find the same gen- 
tlemen over zealous for the admission of California. 
It is from no just regard to sound principles that 
they have changed their action. The people of 
California iiave inserted the proviso for them; the}'- 
have thus secured their end and therefore cha..gc 
their policy. My objections to the California bill 
of the last session were numerous and grave, but 
it had the great advantage of settling tlie whole 

Juestion vi'ithout any violation of sound principles, 
therefore overcame my objections, and gave it 
my cordial and earnest support. The bill now be- 
fore us for the admission of California has not 
Uiat merit. It has all the objections that existed 
against the former bill, with still graver ones su- 
peradded, and is without the merit of closing the 
question. It settles nothing but the addition of 
another non-slaveholding State to the Union, thus 
giving the predominating interest additional power 
to settle more fully the territorial questions which 
it leaves unadjusted. In this state of the question 
it cannot receive my support. 

Those who claim the power in Congress to ex- 
clude slavery from the Territories, rely rather on 
majority than principle to support it. They af- 
firm, with singular ignorance of, or want of fidelity 
to, the facts, that Congress has, from the begin- 
ning of the Government, uniformly claimed, and 
repeatedly exercisod, the power to discourage slave- 



ry and to exclude it from tlie Territories. My inJ 
vestigation of the subject has satisfied my own mind 
that neither position is sustained by a single prece- 
dent. I exclude, of course, legislation prohibiting 
the African slave trade; and I hold the ordinance 
of 1787 not to be within the principle asserted. For 
the first thirty years of our history this general 
duty to protect this great interest equally with 
every other, was universally admitted and fairly 
performed by every department of the Government. 
The act of 1793 was passed to secure the delivery 
up of fun-itivcs from labor escaping to the non- 
slaveholding States; your navigation laws author- 
ized their transportation on the high seas. The Gov- 
ernment demanded, and repeatedly received, com- 
pensation for the owners of slaves for injuries sus- 
tained in these lawful voyages by the interference 
of foreign governments. It not only protected us 
upon the high seas, but followed us to foreign lands, 
where we had been driven by the dangers of the sea, 
and protected slave property when thus cast even 
within the jurisdiction of hostile municipal laws. 
The slave property of our people was protected 
against the incursions of Indians by your military 
pov.-er and public treaties. The citizens of Georgia 
have received hundreds of thousands of dollars 
through your treaties for Indian depredations upon 
this species of property. That clause of the treaty 
of Ghent which provided compensation for proper- 
ty destroyed or taken by the British government, 
placed slavery precisely upon the same ground with 
other property; and a New England man [Mr. 
AoAais] ably and faithfully maintained the rights 
of the slaveholder under it at the Court of St. 
James. Then the Government was administered 
according to the Constitution, and not according 
to what is now called "the spirit of the age." Those 
legislators looked for political powers and public 
duties in the organic law which political commu- 
nities had laid down for their guidance and gov- 
ernment. Humanity-mongers, atheistical social- 
ists, wiio would upturn the moral, social, and po- 
litical foundations of society, who would substitute 
the folly of men for the wisdom of God, were then 
justly considered as the enemies of the human 
race, and as deserving the contempt, if not the 
execration, of all mankind. 

Until the year 1820 your territorial legislation 
was marked by the same general spirit of fairness 
and justice. Notwithstanding the constant asser- 
tions to the contrary by gentlemen from the North, 
up to that period no act weis ever passed by Con- 
gress maintaining or asserting the primary consti- 
tutional power to prevent any citizen of the United 
States owning slaves from removing with them to 
our territories, and there receiving legal protection 
for this propeity. Until that time such persons 
did so remove into all the territories owned or ac- 
quired by the United States, except the Northwest 
Territory, and were there adequately protected. 
The action of Congress in reference to the ordi- 
nance of 1787 does not contravene this principle. 
That ordinance was passed on the 13th of July, 
1787, before the adoption of our present Constitu- 
tion. It purported on its face to be a perpetual 
compact between the State of Virginia, the people 
of the Territory, and the then Government of the 
United States, and unalterable except by the con- 
sent of all the parties. When Congress met for 
the first time under the new government, on the 4th 
of March, 1789, it found the government thus es- 
tablished by virtue of this ordinance in actual oper- 
ation ; and on the 7th of August, 1789, it passed a 
law making the offices of governor and secretary 
of the Territory conform to the Constitution of the 



'A 



\iew government. It did nothing more. It made 
no reference to the sixth and laat acction of tlie 
ordinance which inliibited .slavery. The division 
of that Territory Wiu proviiled forin the ordinance; 
at cacl» division, tlie whole of the ordinance was 
assigned by Cung-rcHS to eacli of its parts. Thiri 
is the whole auni and wubstance of the Free-Soil 
claim to legislative precedents. Congress did not 
.issert the rigiit to alter a solemn com|)uct entered 
mto with the former government, but gave its con- 
sent by its legislation to the governments estab- 
lished and provided for in the compact. If the 
original compact was void for want of power in 
the old govenunent to make it, as IMr. Madison 
supposeiT, Congress may not have been bound to 
accept it — it certjiinly had no power to alter it. 
From these facts and principles it is deai that the 
legislation for the Northwest Territory ilocs not 
conflict with the principle which I assert, and does 
not afford precedents for the liostile legislation of 
Congress against slavery in the Territories. That 
such was neither the prmciple nor the policy upon 
which the act of the 7th of August, 178M, was based, 
is further shown by the subsecjucnt action of the 
same Congress. On the 2d of April. H'K), Con- 
gress, by a formal act, accepted the cession made 
by North Carolina of her western lands (now the 
State of Tennessee) with this clause in the deed 
of cession: "That no regulations made or to be 
made by Congress shall tend to emancipate slaves" 
in the ceded territory; and on the '2titl) of May, 
1790, passed a territorial bill for the government of 
all the territory claimed by the United States south 
of the Ohio river. The description of this terri- 
tory included all the lands cctfed by North Caro- 
hna, but it included a great deal more. Its bound- 
aries were left indefinite, because there were con- 
flicting claims to all the rest of the territory. But 
this act put the whole country claimed by the 
United States south of the Ohio under this pro-sla- 
very clause of the North Carolina tiecd. The whole 
action of the first Congress in relation to slavei-y in 
the Territories of the United States seeins to have 
been this : It acquiesced in a government for the 
Nortliwest Territory based upon a pre-existing 
anti-slavery ordinance, created a government for 
the country ceded by North Carolina in conform- 
ity with the pro slavery clause in her deed, and 
extended this pro-slavery clause to all the rest 
of the territory claimctl by the United States 
south of the Ohio river. This legislation vindicates 
the first Congress from all imputation of having 
established the precedent claimed by the friends 
of legislative exclusion. The next territorial act 
which was passed was that of the 7th of April, 
179H. It was the first act of territorial legislation 
which had to rest solely upon original, nriinary, 
constitutional power over the sulJject. It estab- 
lished a government over the territory included 
within tile boundaries of a line drawn due east, 
from the mouth of the Yazoo river to the Chatta- 
hoochee river, then down that river to the thirty- 
first degree of north latitude, then west on that 
line to the Mississippi river, then up the Mississippi 
to the beginning. This territory was within the 
boundary of the United Stales as defined by the 
treaty ot Paris, and was not within the boundary 
of any of the States. The charter of Georgia lim- 
ited her boundary on the south to the Altamaha 
river. In 1763, after the surrender of her charter, 
her limits were extended by the crown to the St. 
Mary's river, and west on the thirty-first degree of 
nortn latitude tc the Mississippi. In 1764, on thfc 
recommendation of the board of trade, her boun- 
dary waa again altered, and that portion of terri- 



tory within the lx)undarieB which I have described 
was annexed to West Florida, and thua it 8to<jd at 
the nivolution and the treaty of peace. Therefore 
the United States claimed il as common property, 
and, in 179^, passed the act now under review lor 
its government. In tliat act she neither claimed 
nor exerted any power to prohibit slavery in it. 
And the (|iUBtion came directly before CoJigress; 
the ordinance of 17iS7 in terms was applied to this 
territory, expressly "excepting and excluding the 
last article of the ordinance," which is the article 
excluding slavery from the Northwe.it Terrritory. 
This is a precedent directly in point, and is against 
the exercise of the power now claimed. In {"i&l, 
tJeorgia ceded her western lands, she protectctl 
slavery in her grant, aii<l the Government com- 
plied with her stipulations. 

In 18U3 the United States acquired Louisiana 
from France by purchase. There is no special 
reference to slavery in the treaty; it was protected 
only under the general term of property. This 
acquisition was soon after the treaty divided into 
two Territories — the Orleans and the I>(juisiana 
Territories — over both of which governments were 
established. The law of slavery obtained in the 
whole country at the time we acquired it. Con- 
gress prohibited the foreign and domeptic slave 
trade in these Territories, but gave the protection 
of its laws to slave owners emigrating thither with 
their slaves. Upon the admission of Louisiana in- 
to the Union, a new government was established 
by Congress over the rest of the country under the 
name of the Missouri territory. This act also at- 
tempted no exclusion; slaveholders emigrated to 
the country with their slaves, and were protected 
by their government. In 1819 Florida was ac- 
qiiiretl by purchase; its laws recogni.sed and pro- 
lected slavery at the time of the acquisition. The 
United States extended the same recognition and 
protection. 

1 have thus briefly reviewed the whole territo- 
rial legislation of Congress from the beginning 
of the Government until 1820, and it sustains 
my proposition, that within that period tliere W£i8 
no precedent where Congress had exercised, or at- 
tempted to exercise, any primary constitutional 
power to prevent slaveholders from emigrating' 
with their slave property to any portion of the 
public lands; and that it had extended the protec- 
tion of its laws and its arms over such persons, in 
all catscs except in the Northwest Territory, where 
it was fettered and restrained by an organic law 
established before the formation of our present 
Constitution. In 1820 this power of Congress over 
the subject of slavery in the Territories was, for the 
fir.st time, distinctly and broadly asserted. It was 
.sternly resisted by the South; the struggle con- 
vulsed the republc; il resulted in what i.^'called a 
compromise, by whicli Missouri was finally ad- 
mitted into the Union without any restriction 
against slavery in her constitution — and slavery 
was prohibitetl in all that part of the territory ac- 
quired from France, not within the State of Mis- 
souri, lying above 36° 30' north latitude. The 
South made this concession to union and harmony. 
It scarcely remains to be seen whether this shall be 
an exception to the general rule, that conceasiona 
to unjust demands are fruitful of nothing but future 
aggression. We are now daily threatened with 
every form of extermination if we do not tamely 
acquiesce in whatever legislation the majority may 
choose to impose upon us in relation to this sul> 
ject. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Mann) threatens us with three millions of hostages 
(he means substitutes) in the persons of our slaves. 



6 



to enforce Free-Soil insolence. The g'entleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Bissell) threatens us with twice, 
thrice, yea, four times nine regiments ready to 
immolate themselves in this cause under pretext of 
supporting the Union. These are brave words, 
even for a militia colonel; Illinois can march down 
the regiments, she has sufficient numbers — how 
many of them she will march back again will de- 
pend upon ourselves. Gentlemen may spare their 
threats: he who counts the danger of defending his 
own honor is already degraded; the people who 
count the cost of maintaining their political rights 
arc ready for slavery. The sentiment of every 
true man at the South will be, We took the Union 
and the Constitution together — we will have both 
or we will have neither. This cry of the Union is 
the masked battery from behind which the Consti- 
tution and the rights of the South are to be assailed. 
Let the South mark the man who is for the Union 
at every hazard and to the last extremity; when 
the day of her peril comes he will be the imitator of 
that liistorical character to whom the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. McLanahan) referred, 
"the base Judean who, for thirty pieces of silver, 
threw away a pearl richer than all his tribe." 

The .South acquiesced, sir, in this compromise. 
Texas being the next acquisition after its adoption, 
it was ap^med to that country. Our claims to 
Oregon being settled, and all of that country lying 
above the compromise line, the North applied the 
prohibition of .slavery to the whole of that country, 
and the South acquiesced in it. Mr. Polk placed 
his approval of the bill upon that express ground. 
The North, after applying the compromise line to 
Texas, now seeks to get rid of it by restricting the 
just territorial rights and limits of Texas. In this 
we think we have just cause of complaint ; but the 
o-entleman from Ohio (Mr. Campbell) manufac- 
tures out of this transaction two of the main counts 
in his indictment arainst the South. That gentle- 
man congratulatesliiinself upon the fact that Ohio 
has schoolhouses and schoolmasters at home. From 
the singularly inaccurate account which he gave of 
that very recent and marked event in our public 
history, I could not resist the conclusion that Ohio 
needed her schoolmasters. That gentleman charges 
the annexation of Texas upon the South, and 
through that policy, he says, northern labor was 
stricken down by the overthrow of the tariff of 
1842 by the votes of the Senators from Texas. 

Mr. CAftlPBELL here stated that he said it was 
southern policy. 

Mr. TOOMBS continued. Neither allegation 
is supported by the facts. When Mr. Tyler at- 
tempted to annex Texas by treaty, it was stronorly 
urged upon the South on sectional grounds by dis- 
tin<niished gentlemen connected with his govern- 
ment. On its presentation to the Senate it was de- 
feated by a large majority, embracing both north- 
ern and southern men. It was then taken up by 
the Democratic party as a party measure; it was 
declared by them to be a great American question. 
Mr. Van Bnren was overthrown at Baltimore for 
opposing it ; Mr. Polk was nominated for the Pres- 
idency mainly for his support of it. Upon every 
Democratic flag throughout the Republic — North, 
South, East, and West — were inscj ibed "Polk, 
Dallas, Texas, and Oregon." The Democratic 
party triumphed ; the Whig party of the South 
combattcd it with a fidelity equal to that of the 
North ; both divisions of the party were overthrown 
in their respective sections, and a majority of the 
people at the North as well as the South sanctioned 
the annexation of Texas. After this decisive pub- 
lic verdict in its favor, several Whigs from the 



South voted for it; it had become a mere question^ 
of time and terms of annexation. Their constitu- 
ents were deeply interested in the terms. I then 
approved and now approve their course. The tariff 
of 184'2 fell by the same means ; hostility to it was 
inscribed upon those same banners ; it became a 
cardinal principle of Democratic faith ; it was pro- 
mulgated by the same party convention, in which 
the whole North was not only represented, but in 
which it had an overwhelming majority. If the act 
of 1846 is undermining northern industry, it is no 
fault of ours. I and every other sotithern Whig, 
except my friend from Alabama, (Mr. Hilliabd,) 
voted against it. I have never yet given a sectional 
vote in these halls. I never will. Whenever the 
state of public opinion in my own section shall de- 
ter me, or the injustice of the other shall incapa- 
citate me from supporting the true interests of the 
whole nation and the just demands of every part of 
the Republic, I u-ill then surrender a trust which I 
can no longer hold with honor. Neither are the 
consequences of the act of 1846 justly chargeable to 
Texas. Where was the Empire State when that 
battle was fought and lost ? Where was New 
Hampshire, Maine, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois.'' 
Yes, sir, where was Ohio.^ Your journals will show 
they were in the ranks of those whom the gentleman 
now chooses to consider the enemies of northern 
labor. If the overthrow of the tariff of 1842 has 
paralyzed the arm of northern labor, the suicidal 
blow was stricken byits own hands. 

To return from this digression: Our next and last 
acquisition was California and New Mexico. They 
are the fruits of successful war. We have borne 
our full share of its burdens — we demand an equal 
participation in its benefits. The rights of the South 
are consecrated by the blood of her children. The 
sword is the title by which the nation acquired the 
country. The thought is suggestive; wise men will 
ponder upon it — brave men will act upon it. I fore- 
saw the dangers of this question; I warned the 
country of these dangers. From the day that the 
first gun was fired upon the Rio Grande, until the 
act was consummated by all the Departments of 
this Government, I resisted all acquisitions of terri- 
tory. My honorable colleague before me [Mr. 
Stephens] and myself, standing upon the ground 
taken by the republican party in 1796 against Jay's 
treaty, voted against appropriating the money to 
carry out the treaty of Gaudalupe Hidalgo. We 
had no support from the South, ancl but half a dozen 
votes from the North. I saw no good prospect of 
adjusting fairly the question which the acquisition 
would present. I therefore resisted a policy which 
threatened the ruin of the South or the subversion 
of the Government. And to-day, men of the North, 
these are the alternatives you present us. We de- 
mand an equal participation in the whole country 
acquired, or a division of it between the North and 
the South. For very obvious reasons, founded upon 
natural causes, we are less solicitous about the ex- 
tent of the privilege than the recognition of the 
principle. The first would most probably be a boon 
without a benefit; the last is the vital spark of our 
whole political system, whose extinguishment is 
death. The North now disavows the principle of divi- 
sion. After getting more than two-thirds of Lou- 
isiana, a portion of Texas, and all of Oregon under 
the Missouri compromise line of division, she now 
repudiates it. I am content. Let us stand on 
original constitutional principles. But let the 
North remember, that when she repudiates the 
compromise line, she is entitled to take nothing by 
the legislative precedents based upon that com- 
promise. With this reservation she is not only 



without a precedent, as I have already sliovn, fur 
our cxclusiuii from any part of the coiMiiion terri- 
tories of tlie Union, but sucii an act would Ik; 
against all well-dctfincd precedcntrt from tlic bepin- 
ning' of the Government to this day. I have pre- 
sented you the case of the South arf atronply as I 
am able to do it, a.s fully as the time your rulen 
allow me will permit. It i.s fortified by principle, 
by authority, and by the inunutable principled of 
eternal justice. It is not only supported by tin- 
principles of our own tJovcrnmcnt, nut l)y the fun- 
damental principles of every "■ood (roverniniut. 
All just government is derived from the consent of 
the governed, and all power exercised without that 
consent is usurpation. The imiver.-;al limitation 
upon all delegated power, whuihcr express or 
implied, is, that it shall be rightfully and justly 
used for the common benefit of those who delegate 
it. No honest, intelligent man can believe, with 
the Constitution and its history before him, that the 
slaveholding States intended to confer upon Con- 
gress the power to legislate against their slave 
property in the Territories, or any where else. 
The day that you do it, vou plant the seeds of dis- 
solution in your political system. Then the House 
will be liivided against itself, and it inust fall. The 
folly of some, the timidity of others, and, per- 
chance, the treachery of others in the South, may 
roll back for a season the wave that shall over- 
whelm and destroy it; but it will be the reflux of 
the advancing, not the receding tide; it shall "-ather 
strcno-th from every breaker, and will finally ac- 
complish its mission. The first act of legislative 
hostility to slavery is the proper point for southern 
resistance. Those in advance may fall— it is the 
common history of revolutions — but the cause will 
not fall with them; no hiunan power can axert the 
result, it will triumph. Though hostile interfer- 
ence is the point of resistance, non-interference is 
not the measure of our rights. We are entitled 
to non-interference from alien and foreign gov- 
ernments. England owes us that much; France 
owes us that much; Ki;Ksia owes us non-inter- 
vention. You owe us more. You owe us pro- 
tection. Withhold it, and you make us aliens 
in our own Government. Our hostility to it, 
then, becomes a necessity — a necessity justified 
by our honor, our interests, and our common 
safety. These are stronger than all human gov- 
ernment. Your hostility is agg-ravated by the 
causes which you allege in its cfefence. We had 
our institutions when you sought our alliance. We 
were content with them then, and we are content 



witli them now. Wc have not sought to thrust 
them up(jn you, nor to interfere with yours. If you 
believe what you say, that yours are so much the 
best toj)romote the happinesB and good govern- 
ment o(^ eoi'iety, why do you fear our equal com- 
petition with you in the 'Icrritories ? We only ask 
that our common government ehall protect us 
both efjually, until the Territories shall he ready to 
be admitted, an Slates, into the Union, theu to 
leave their citizens free Uj adopt any domestic 
policy in reference to this subject, which, in their 
judgment, may best promote their intere^it and 
their happine'ss. The demand is just. Grant it, 
and you place your prosperity and ours upon a 
solid foumlation ; you perpetuate the Union, so 
necessary to your prosperity; you sulve the true 
problem of Republican Government; you vindi- 
cate the power of con.stiiulional guarantees to pro- 
tect political rights against the will uf majorities. I 
can see no reasonableprospectthatyou will grant it. 
The fact cannot longer be concealed, the declara- 
tion of members here proves it, the action of this 
House, is daily demonstrating it, tliat we are in 
the midst of a legi.-ilativi- revolution, the obj>-ct of 
which is to trample under foot the Constitution 
and the laws, and to make the will of the maji>rily 
the supremo law of the land. In this emergency 
our duty is clear; it is to stand by the Constitution 
and laws, to observe in good faith all of its require- 
ments, until the wrong is consummated, until the 
act of exclusion is put upon the stiituie book; it 
will then be dcmonstratcil tnat the Constitution is 
powerless for our protection; it will then be not 
only the right but the duty of the slaveholding 
States to resume the powers which they have con- 
ferred upon this Government, and to seek new 
safeguards for their future security. It will then 
become our right to prevent tlic application of the 
resources of the Republic to the maintenance of the 
wrongful act. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Mans) 
says the volcano is raging beneath our feet, that 
thunders are rolling over our heads, and that thick 
clouds are surrounding us. If it be true, let the 
aggressor tremble. We who are contending for a 
principle essential to our interest, our safety, and 
our political equality in this Union, can suffer no 
greater calamity than its loss. This is an appeal 
from the argument to our fears. I answer that ap- 
peal in the patriotic language of a distinguished 
Georgian, who yet lives to arouse the hearts of his 
countrymen to resistance to wron"-: When the ar- 
gument is exhausted we will stand by our arms. 



OF CONGP^S^ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



01 1 898 409 2 § 



^ 



y^ 



